In defence of Adrian Yalland Tory spin doctor who bit hand of Matt O'Connor, founder of Fathers4Justice

Tory spin doctor in "cannibal incident"

 

http://order-order.com/2014/02/24/tory-spin-doctor-arrested-over-alleged-cannibal-assault-two-men-bitten-in-bloody-hampshire-brawl/

http://order-order.com/2014/02/24/tory-spin-doctor-bites-back-im-no-cannibal-bit-only-in-self-defence/

"Before the General Election, Tory candidates were obliged to sign-up to a raft of ‘eye-catching’ promises on behalf of the national party, including a deal which the Party did with the campaign group fathers4justice. The group had been responsible for pushing the fathers rights’ agenda for nearly ten years and are regarded as many as the antithesis of feminism (which they blame for family breakdown), attracting as they seem to, angry men who wish to rail against the injustice of being separated from and prevented access to their children – in some cases perhaps with good cause!

Whilst some say the group are ‘aggressive campaigners’, others say they are ‘just aggressive’.

The man who founded fathers4justice, Matt O’Connor, admits to drink and anger problems, and has had mental health issues in the past. The woman who now runs the group, his wife Nadine, claims to suffer mental health problems as a result of domestic violence, but once Tweeted a picture of her 8 year old son in a blood-soaked ‘killing Tony Blair’ costume, carrying the former PM’s severed head in one hand and a knife in the other. Not exactly what you expect from a woman campaigning for the rights for others to have unfettered access to their children. One wonders why Social Services didn’t get involved and remove their child given the behaviour the parents exhibit. Hardly a picture of mental stability!

It would however appear after the General Election the Government attempted to make good on some of the pre-election promises, putting in place a number of reviews into family law reform and reform of the family courts.

Fathers4justice were invited to contribute to these inquiries and make the case for shared parenting and their other areas of concern. It would also appear, that just as they were about to make a real difference to the family law landscape, the O’Connors had a tantrum, and walked away from the process, meaning the Bill which the Government introduced was written ‘without the benefit of their views’. The group then condemned the Bill they were invited to shape, yet boycotted!

It was as if they didn’t really want to deliver their agenda, lose their raison d’etre – and presumably the income from their 36,000 members – which the group’s website says is £30 a year. That’s an income of £1.4m a year. Yet curiously the group’s accounts show they only have £700 in the bank and an income of £24,000 a year. Are they being dishonest about their membership numbers, or in their accounting?

However, at the point the group turned its back on the Children and Families Bill, their local MP, the unfortunate Caroline Nokes stepped in, and offered to help by tabling amendments for the group. She even got herself on to the committee responsible for the Bill, and five times publicly asked for the group to give her the amendments she needed, even mentioned the groups agenda and asked them to ‘help me deliver it’.

Bizarrely, instead of welcoming her support, the O’Connors turned on the hapless MP, demanded she resign, and accused her of betraying their ‘36,000 members’.  Worse, they then declared ‘war’ on her, and a local Tory activist Adrian Yalland, who was stupid enough to put his head above the parapet and tell the O’Connors they were talking rubbish. More about him later.

What follows surely has to be illegal under the 2003 Communications Act? A year long campaign of abuse, intimidation and harassment of Nokes, and it would seem Yalland, who in December finally decided to act, and filed a libel action against the O’Connors for some of their more preposterous but damaging allegations. Perhaps realising their mistake, the group decided it had to cover its tracks and re-invent history. Thankfully, the internet and Twitter is able to confirm their version of events is a fantasy.

The tweets and articles made a huge number of allegations against both the MP and against Yalland, which it would seem are either baseless or just based on hearsay.

The allegations: Dodgy business practices, sexual impropriety, corruption, child abuse and collusion with the police. The intimidation; veiled death threats, attempts to blackmail, stalking and hints at firebombing the MPs house, running her over and shooting her - all alleged to have been made over Twitter and via the O’Connors blogs. Even the local newspaper said the O’Connors were conducting a Witch Hunt against Nokes, whose only crime appears to be offering to help. Twitter eventually closed two of the couple’s three accounts down after the MP complained and the O’Connors repeatedly ignored Twitter's warnings.

What is clear, is that Nokes, whether out of conviction or fear of the reprisals, seems to have stuck to her word. She asked the group to give her the amendments they wanted making, and has still spoken up in favour of the fathers4Justice agenda whilst they seek to assassinate her career! Apparently, the latest avenue for the O'Connors to attack her is that she is refusing to sign a meaningless Early Day Motion on the subject – but this is probably because the EDM praises a group which is still at war with her! Can’t say I blame her. Oddly, none of the EDM’s signatories actually bothered to speak in the recent Parliamentary debate on shared parenting, yet Nokes did – and was called a hypocrite by the O’Connors for doing so. It's like some weird  alternative universe where the people you'd want to support actually become your enemies. What planet are the O'Connors from that they think they are going to get MPs to do what they want by abusing them? Of course, the world where their new Parliamentary champion is no one other than George Galloway!

Anyway, anyone who know how politics works knows an EDM is a pointless exercise which is lucky to warrant a debate. The O’Connors would be hard-pressed to point to any EDM which has lead to a change in the law. And they have hitched their horse to the wrong wagon with Galloway!

Meanwhile, the O’Connors are subject to a libel action from Yalland, who claimed on another blog he was attacked by Matt O’Connor and his landlord whilst delivering legal papers relating to the case. In increasingly (and probably overblown) statements from the O’Connors, Yalland is now accused of breaking into the family home in an attempt to attack Mrs O’Connor physically. Yet the video of the incident which the O’Connors released clearly shows Yalland outside the house, trying to take a picture of it (which is perfectly legal) and repeatedy walking away. The video also shows Yalland having his phone grabbed by O’Connor, who then starts rolling around on the floor as if he had just been floored by Mike Tyson, not a chubby man in his 40’s who is off work after having a heart attack in December!

The incident happened six weeks ago, and Yalland still hasn't been charged. If there was evidence to support the O'Connor's claims, why haven't the police charged him yet. I am told that the police have already dismissed one of the O'Connor's allegations - that Yalland was harassing them. Probably because they know he was being harassed by the O'Connors.

Personally, given Yalland claims the O’Connors have spent the last year lying about him to the general public, you wonder if they are now lying about him to the police, making false allegations about an attack which never happened?

Certainly the ‘bite’ on Matt O’Connor’s finger (which Yalland denies causing) looks self-inflicted with a knife, whereas the bite on the landlord’s arm (which Yalland admits to making) looks suspiciously like it was inflicted by someone who was at the time of the bite being strangled from behind – which is in fact what Yalland claims was happening. The video certainly shows Yalland getting off the ground where he claims he was pushed to and punched.

Whatever. The point is dressing up at Batman gets media attention. Making false allegations destroys a career. But what actually have the O’Connors delivered for their £1.4m a year in fees from their 36,000 members? At the time they had a chance to deliver the agenda, they picked a fight with an MP able to help scuppered their own agenda, and have spent the last year bitching and frothing like a couple of lunatics and blaming everyone but themseleves.

Classic narcissism!"

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/tory-spin-doctor-working-for-caroline.html

Tory spin doctor bites hand of F4J activist Matt O'Connor

Biting is what girls and children do, and certain has-been boxers like Mike Tyson.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2567688/Tory-spin-doctor-arrested-biting-Fathers4Justice-founder-tried-serve-legal-papers.html

http://www.nadineoconnor.org/?cat=73

I still have no idea what this is all about though I have taken an interest in F4J.

I suspect the reason why F4J has not taken off is because of the incompetence of the woman to whom Matt O'Connor has entrusted the publicity of F4J.

She is after all his wife.

My line was to launch a full frontal attack on feminism and kick it in the goolies, so to speak. This means toppling its three pillars by (1) repealing the Equality Act 2010 (2) abolishing no fault divorce and finally (3) abolishing the welfare state.

Instead, all we get from Nadine O'Connor is passive-aggressive whingeing about Early Day Motions.

By the way, I nearly went to a party of Adrian Yalland's with Claudia Dalgleish a few years ago. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106633/BNP-leader-Nick-Griffin-sex-pest-exposed-glamour-model-car.html

We were going to drive down that weekend and stay in a hotel.  It never happened in the end, but the idea of spending a weekend in a hotel room alone with the sex bomb of the BNP makes me smile wistfully even now.

Sex Bomb Claudia Dalgleish with whom I nearly spent a weekend by the seaside

The new sex bomb of the BNP is the lovely Tina Gentry.

Try as one might, can one remain undistracted by her beauty?

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/in-defence-of-adrian-yalland-tory-spin.html

In defence of Adrian Yalland

Do these policies belong in a Fascist Party?

http://newbritishunion.org/policy-documents/


It is forbidden:

1. To so neglect an animal in one's ownership, care or accommodation that it thereby experiences appreciable pain or appreciable damage.

2. To use an animal unnecessarily for what clearly exceeds its powers or causes it appreciable pain, or which it-in consequence of its condition-is obviously not capable of.

3. To use and animal for demonstrations, film-making, spectacles, or other public events to the extent that these events cause the animal appreciable pain or appreciable damage to health.

4. To use a fragile, ill, overworked or old animal for which further life is a torment for any other purpose than to cause or procure a rapid, painless death.

5. To put out one's domestic animal for the purpose of getting rid of it.

6. To set or test the power of dogs on cats, foxes, and other animals.

7. To shorten the ears or the tail of a dog over two weeks old. This is allowed if it is done with anaesthesia.

8. To shorten the tail of a horse. This is allowed if it is to remedy a defect or illness of the tail and is done by a veterinarian and under anaesthesia.

9. To perform a painful operation on an animal in an unprofessional manner or without anaesthesia, or if anaesthesia in a particular case is impossible according to veterinary standards.

10. To kill an animal for fur.

11. To force-feed fowl.

12. To slaughter an animal without pre-stunning. (There are to be no exceptions to state law on the grounds of religion)

13. To operate on or handle living animals in ways that may cause appreciable pain or damage for the purpose of experiments.


I was to have been Media Spokesman for the New British Union until I realised I would have to defend all of the above.  All my tactful suggestions for policy documents to be removed from display to be re-released after re-drafting while I concentrated on making the point that Fascism is not Racism were received as a personal insult.  

What would Mosley or Mussolini think of men who think Fascism is about animal rights and that it would be more of a deal-breaker than race?

• Is animal welfare a girly preoccupation?
• Is vegetarianism a girly preoccupation?
• Is Britain a morbidly feminised nation?
• Is the British political establishment morbidly feminised?
• Are those who would wish to challenge the British political establishment also themselves morbidly feminised?
• Do men who join animal rights groups do it just to get pussy?  
• Are men who join animal groups mostly from low income groups?
• Is how feminised the men of a nation are linked to the availability of extramarital sex?
• Is the availability of extramarital sex linked to the promiscuity of women?
• Is the easy availability of extramarital sex linked to feminisation of men who start taking on the causes favoured by women in order to have sexual access to them?
• Is it any surprise that a nation of feminised men would be invaded and exploited by men who have not been feminised?

How do you know if you are a male who has been feminised?

1. You regard feminism as a sacred cow.
2. You regard feminism as a sacred cow even after being reduced to the abject condition of joining Fathers4Justice (ie you have been fucked over by your ex-wife who has not only divorced you but also deprived you of your offspring) yet are still too afraid to criticise feminism.
3. You refuse to criticise sluts.
4. Even after you have been told of the sluts that harm do, you still refuse to criticise sluts because most of your friends and female relations are sluts anyway, and probably so is your boss and/or your girlfriend.   
5. You recognise that sluts are your main and only source of sex that you can afford and it wouldn't do to offend them.
6. You prefer to get your sex cheap and free (but with lots of hidden charges) from sluts rather than from  an honest prostitute who tells you her price up front.
7. You cannot easily obtain the services of an honest prostitute because brothels are illegal in the matriarchy you live in, but you are too stupid or scared to call for the legalisation of brothels.   
8. You have read all of the above, understood all of the above but still refuse criticise the promiscuous female who form the parasitic pornocracy made up of SSMs (Slut or Spinster Single Mothers) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html
9. You are a leader or a member of a Eurosceptic party wishing to assert British sovereignty and don't care if the whole world knows you are neurotically and pathetically afraid of offending Jews and would suspend a candidate for offending Zionists even if she did not deny the Holocaust and Holocaust Denial is not a crime in Britain, whose sovereignty you wish to assert.  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/how-i-would-deal-with-ann-marie.html
10. You think it is OK to be effeminate ie think, behave and express the political preferences of women to the detriment of yourself, the male sex and the long term national interest of your nation, because you have been told that feminism allows you to do so on grounds of gender equality.  
11. You do not see or refuse to acknowledge the shame of being dominated by the female sex who are mostly weaker, poorer and more irrational than you.